The morning after the New Year celebrations is not the best time to ask such migraine-inducing questions as how many times a politician has to promise something before it becomes a binding commitment, writes Fintan O'Toole.
Let's just assume, shall we, that a promise given in an election manifesto, repeated in a programme for government and repeated again in the aftermath of a major report is not to be taken lightly? Bertie Ahern promised us something in the Fianna Fáil manifesto for the 2002 election. He solemnised the promise in the Programme for Government. And he reiterated it when the Flood tribunal report detailed the corrupt practices of his former pal Ray Burke.
The promise went like this: "We will introduce a proceeds of corruption Act modelled on the proceeds of crime legislation, to further target white-collar crime and corruption in both public and private sectors." After the Flood report, the Taoiseach put flesh on these bones: a corruption assets bureau, modelled on the Criminal Assets Bureau, was to be established, to "recover assets corruptly obtained and to recover any increase in the value of an asset that has been obtained through corruption".
In announcing the corruption assets bureau, the Taoiseach could hardly have been more forthright about its urgent necessity: "Those who benefit from corrupting public officials and those holding elective office must, in addition to criminal sanctions, be held financially accountable. Such persons must be hit where it hurts most - in their pockets. Proceeds obtained through this legislation will be paid to the exchequer and held for the benefit of those who have suffered - the Irish people." The case for this legislation and for a specific agency to target those who gain from bribery - both the givers and the receivers - was, and is, overwhelming.
In some ways, the situation in relation to the corruption of public life in Ireland is now worse than it was 20 years ago. Back then, it was possible to believe that if only we knew the truth, there would be consequences. Now, we know the truth - or at least a significant slice of it - and we also know that there are no consequences.
Very extensive and expensive investigations have uncovered payments to politicians by named individuals (Joe McGowan, Tom Brennan, Mick Bailey, Patrick Gallagher, Ben Dunne and others) to Ray Burke and Charles Haughey. Nobody at all has been convicted of corruption.
Those who have benefited from corrupt payments and corrupt decisions have been allowed to retain their ill-gotten gains.
The idea of a corruption assets bureau was specifically to address this impunity.
It would operate through the civil law, allowing a tribunal's findings to be the basis for action. It would, crucially, be able to calculate the corrupt assets on the basis of what they would be worth in today's terms. As the then Government chief whip, now Minister for Education, Mary Hanafin told us in September 2002, "if a person corruptly received £1,000 in 1960 and bought a house with that money the High Court will be entitled to order that the current-day value of the house be frozen or forfeited". The implications of this for the Taoiseach's mentor, Charles Haughey, would have been obvious at the time. The High Court could have ordered the seizure and forfeiture of at least a large proportion of the assets that Haughey built up through corruption - the Abbeville estate, Inishvickillane island, the yacht, the stud farm - and, in the Taoiseach's words, used them "for the benefit of those who have suffered - the Irish people". Given Bertie Ahern's passionate defence of Charles Haughey at the latter's State funeral (it cost us €328,000, excluding salaries and policing, by the way), it is reasonable to ask whether this is the reason why the proceeds of corruption Act and the corruption assets bureau sank without trace. It is true, certainly, that the Attorney General was reported as raising legal concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. But similar concerns were raised about the Criminal Assets Bureau and proved to be groundless. In any case, the Government would have been justified in seeking a constitutional amendment, especially since it had a democratic mandate to fulfil a specific election promise.
What we got instead was a highly adulterated version of the proposals, dumped into the amended Proceeds of Crime Act. These do include the possibility of the courts issuing a corrupt enrichment order to seize corruptly acquired assets. But the crucial element of the promise - a specific corruption assets bureau - has disappeared.
This makes for a classic Irish solution to an Irish problem - a tough-sounding piece of legislation with no one to enforce it. The whole point - a visible, proactive agency with a statutory duty to go after the dirty money - has been lost. Anyone tempted to give or take a bribe knows that they are still likely to get away with it.